The Magical Disappearing Worlds

[ru4por]

I know I can't be the only one who is tired of our professional tour catering to the players that don't belong competing on that level. If people want to know what will really start "growing the sport" it's to stop pandering and giving out participation medals. I can't name a single other sport that does this at the top level...

So, a World Championship with only 1000+ rated Pros? Am Championship with...what, six competitors in each division, that have a legit chance at winning. I am sure all of us unworthy would travel to watch and skip playing a nice local event. The financial success of these tournaments hinge upon the numbers....made up by the that don't belong.

 

[Matt B.]

I know I can't be the only one who is tired of our professional tour catering to the players that don't belong competing on that level. If people want to know what will really start "growing the sport" it's to stop pandering and giving out participation medals. I can't name a single other sport that does this at the top level...

I wish we would try this for a year at NTs so that all of the entitled Pros find out that no one cares.

 

[shive]

to JC17393:

The number of rounds has dropped from 8 to 5. That is a 40% decrease. You say one round was dropped because of "circumstances". There are always circumstances. Is it likely that they will go back to 6 next year? History, which is dominated by decreases, suggests otherwise. Given that history, it is more likely that there would be only 4 rounds next year, than that there would be 6.

 

[JC17393]

to JC17393:

The number of rounds has dropped from 8 to 5. That is a 40% decrease. You say one round was dropped because of "circumstances". There are always circumstances. Is it likely that they will go back to 6 next year? History, which is dominated by decreases, suggests otherwise. Given that history, it is more likely that there would be only 4 rounds next year, than that there would be 6.

Given what I've read on the subject, the 5 rounds this year are solely a result of the host, and we should expect the number to go back up to 6 rounds in 2016. The drop from 8 to 6 was mandated by the membership (in a survey taken in 2004). Until there's another mandate from the membership, I don't think it's correct to assume that this year is anything other than an anomoly.

But even given all that, if the choice is 4-5 rounds on the highest quality courses available versus 6-8 rounds that are watered down or less than ideally suited for the skill level of the players, I'll take fewer rounds on more skill appropriate courses.

 

[1978]

Given what I've read on the subject, the 5 rounds this year are solely a result of the host, and we should expect the number to go back up to 6 rounds in 2016. The drop from 8 to 6 was mandated by the membership (in a survey taken in 2004). Until there's another mandate from the membership, I don't think it's correct to assume that this year is anything other than an anomoly.

But even given all that, if the choice is 4-5 rounds on the highest quality courses available versus 6-8 rounds that are watered down or less than ideally suited for the skill level of the players, I'll take fewer rounds on more skill appropriate courses.

6 to 8 rounds is not watered down. 2 times around each of 3 courses. + a good challenge semi course, + a creative final 9...oh not every place has DG like Charlotte.

 

[JC17393]

6 to 8 rounds is not watered down. 2 times around each of 3 courses. + a good challenge semi course, + a creative final 9...oh not every place has DG like Charlotte.

I mean the courses are watered down...shortened or changed in the name of keeping round times at or under the magical 3 hour mark. There have been many instances over the years in which courses aren't played in their longest or most challenging layouts for the sake of keeping the rounds moving faster in order to squeeze them all in.

Only playing five rounds in Pittsburgh this year is allowing for the Open division to play primarily Gold-level courses, just as an example. I find that preferable to playing shorter versions of Moraine, Deer Lakes, and/or Slippery Rock in the name of playing more total holes.

 

[sidewinder22]

I'd much prefer one round of 18-27 holes/day with tee times as a general tourney structure.

 

[Dan Ensor]

I'd much prefer one round of 18-27 holes/day with tee times as a general tourney structure.

Same here. Tee times are the fairest way to play. Everyone hits the same hole after the same amount of holes. It's a big difference, some times.

 

[trumbulldore]

It'd be nice for one of the top touring pros to chime in with their thoughts on this....color me intrigued

 

[mashnut]

Same here. Tee times are the fairest way to play. Everyone hits the same hole after the same amount of holes. It's a big difference, some times.

Yeah but it's also a big difference when it's calm in the morning and windy in the afternoon (for example) and the people with the earlier tee times get a huge advantage because of that. I'd argue that a shotgun start is fairer than tee times personally.

 

[JTacoma03]

Agreed. Though even with its impressive fundraising efforts, even the Ledgestone tournament is catering/pandering to the "lesser" players as much as it does the handful of elite players.

The dream scenario for a true pro tour, whether it includes Worlds or not, would be entirely comprised of events formatted like Maple Hill (one course, no ams, no age-protected divisions, qualifying only) and financed more generously than Ledgestone or any other event currently in existence. We're still years, if not decades away from anything like that.

I partially agree. However I don't think ledgestone financing is necessary off of the bat. I do think these should be standard for Majors (and eventually NT's down the road):

1. One Open division for each gender (ideally, eventually the ladies will grow to have their own tour but that's another discussion entirely and not realistic at this point).
2. One round per day
3. A cut at some point before the final day
4. Required minimum media investment by the tournament organizers. If a tournament happens and only 500 people see it, does anyone care?

Remember that if we're cutting other divisions and even just maintaining current tour standard purse levels the Open winner payout increases because you're not guaranteeing other division winners X amount, and even though you will pay more open players as you get down to the cash line it's a less steep slope of payment dropoff between places.

So, a World Championship with only 1000+ rated Pros? Am Championship with...what, six competitors in each division, that have a legit chance at winning. I am sure all of us unworthy would travel to watch and skip playing a nice local event. The financial success of these tournaments hinge upon the numbers....made up by the that don't belong.

Despite your attempts to the contrary, you're actually making my point for me.

I wish we would try this for a year at NTs so that all of the entitled Pros find out that no one cares.

Agreed.

 

[1978]

I mean the courses are watered down...shortened or changed in the name of keeping round times at or under the magical 3 hour mark. There have been many instances over the years in which courses aren't played in their longest or most challenging layouts for the sake of keeping the rounds moving faster in order to squeeze them all in.

Only playing five rounds in Pittsburgh this year is allowing for the Open division to play primarily Gold-level courses, just as an example. I find that preferable to playing shorter versions of Moraine, Deer Lakes, and/or Slippery Rock in the name of playing more total holes.

You win, yes the courses were watered down in that aspect. Both Nevin and Renaissance.

 

[Jabumbo]

There seems to be a general sentiment that more rounds = better competition.

While I completely understand the desire to play as many rounds as possible during the time there, why does this inherently make things better? While it might seem better from a personal perspective in getting more bang for your buck and for spectators getting more action, the competition itself doesn't really change any.

I think as long as you know what's on the table before the show starts, the best gamer is going to come out on top and that's all that matters! Nothing makes this tourney any better/worse than the others outside of it being designated as such by the PDGA. Its merit should be based on the competitors, not the location!

 

[DavidSauls]

More rounds is better for competition, in that it means less effect of a single hot or cold round, or even a single bad hole. Consistent excellence is rewarded.

Assuming we're talking the same caliber courses.

I'm an old baseball fan and, before wildcards, I used to treasure the regular season titles because they were accomplished over the long haul, rather than short and unpredictable playoff series.

Of course, there is a point of diminishing returns, and I've no idea where it is. 4 rounds? 6? 8?

 

[sidewinder22]

I just dislike having to scramble to a second round of a day and too often lunch breaks are cut short and not equal for all players when cards often come back at different times.

 

[Jabumbo]

More rounds is better for competition, in that it means less effect of a single hot or cold round, or even a single bad hole. Consistent excellence is rewarded.

But why does this make the tournament better?

A hot goaltender in hockey can carry a team a few rounds and gets heralded for the effort. Heck, I am pretty sure that the SF Giants won the world series last season on the hot hand of one pitcher. Should they have had to play more games to validate their win?

Having that hot round at the right time is part of being a top competitor, so why diminish its value on the biggest stage?

 

[JC17393]

But why does this make the tournament better?

A hot goaltender in hockey can carry a team a few rounds and gets heralded for the effort. Heck, I am pretty sure that the SF Giants won the world series last season on the hot hand of one pitcher. Should they have had to play more games to validate their win?

Having that hot round at the right time is part of being a top competitor, so why diminish its value on the biggest stage?

To the hot goaltender/pitcher analogy, I think David's point was that the more games/rounds there are, the less impact the hot player will have. I mean, if the World Series was 9 games instead of 7, then maybe Bumgarner doesn't pitch in game 7 (since they arguably might have had to save him for game 8 or 9) and maybe the Royals win that game and either game 8 or 9 (whichever one Bumgarner isn't able to pitch in).

I definitely see that argument, and I'm a firm believer in the idea of the cream rising to the top the more chance it is given. But I also think that if the courses are of the right caliber, 4-5 rounds is plenty of golf for that cream to rise. There's a good reason ball golf uses 72 holes for most of their tournaments...the players are well matched against one another and the courses are set up to provide appropriate challenge for players of their skill level.

 

[ru4por]

More rounds is better for competition, in that it means less effect of a single hot or cold round, or even a single bad hole. Consistent excellence is rewarded.

I am not sure the World Champion crown should always represent consistency. If an inconsistent player comes to world and shoots over his head, and rises to the occasion, he is certainly a worthy champ. I get the idea that one good round should not win the event.

 

[DavidSauls]

But why does this make the tournament better?

A hot goaltender in hockey can carry a team a few rounds and gets heralded for the effort. Heck, I am pretty sure that the SF Giants won the world series last season on the hot hand of one pitcher. Should they have had to play more games to validate their win?

Having that hot round at the right time is part of being a top competitor, so why diminish its value on the biggest stage?

As I said, I don't where the line is drawn. Might we go the other way? A 1-round world championship? Imagine the excitement! A 9-holer? Talk about pressure!

Perhaps if the invitations were limited to a dozen or two players, earned over the course of the year, it would reward consistency to get there, and the hot hand when there. Like many team sports.

I've known players to shoot way over the head for a 4-round tournament. If they are lucky enough to pull off that trick at Worlds, should they be Champion?

I don't know. Just food for thought.

Though the more challenging the courses, the less need for extra rounds.

 

[DavidSauls]

I am not sure the World Champion crown should always represent consistency. If an inconsistent player comes to world and shoots over his head, and rises to the occasion, he is certainly a worthy champ. I get the idea that one good round should not win the event.

I should clarify that I'm not just thinking of consistency, but consistent excellence.